Could Ireland have made any noticeable impact in the Second World War

sparky42

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, we are in the era of 'hybrid war' and have been since about 2005.

I'd say a bit earlier than that with the clusterfeck of post Iraq 2 starting the Hybrid war situation, and it's only going to get worse from Africa to Asia most likely.

Schadenfreudia

OK.

So the RoI is at war with Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas - to mention just a few.

Thus we were also at war against Hitler - so why all the bull about "sitting on our arses dancing at the crossroads begorrah" when we were actually partaking in WW2 on the side of Western Imperialism?

Rejoice.!! We were at war in WW2 - and now we are at war with much of the non-Western world (according to you folk) - so what's this thread all about then??

Jawgap

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

OK.

So the RoI is at war with Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas - to mention just a few.

Thus we were also at war against Hitler - so why as the bull about "sitting on our arses dancing at the crossroads begorrah" when we were actually partaking serious in WW2 on the side of Western Imperialism?

Rejoice.!! We were at war in WW2 - and now we are at war with much of the non-Western world (according to you folk) - so what's this thread all about then??

Depends on your definition of "war" - are we involved in an inter-state Clausewitzian war? No, clearly we're not.

Are we peripherally involved in a proxy hybrid war with Russia, ISIL, etc - possibly, given that we've DF personnel on deployment in various parts of the world, including in regions were those actors are active.

Jawgap

sparky42 wrote: »

I'd say a bit earlier than that with the clusterfeck of post Iraq 2 starting the Hybrid war situation, and it's only going to get worse from Africa to Asia most likely.

All these things are open to interpretation.

NATO reckon 2005 saw the onset of hybrid war - but they only figured that out in about 2009!!

CINCLANTFLT

Jawgap wrote: »

Well done?

We lost out on the Marshall Plan - we were shut out of the UN until Stalin popped his clogs and De Gaul was never a fan of us joining the EEC.

So yes well done Dev and thank God for Lemass

But Ireland was part of the Marshall Plan?
http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/adopting-the-american-way-ireland-and-the-marshall-plan-1947-57/

Schadenfreudia

CINCLANTFLT wrote: »

But Ireland was part of the Marshall Plan?
http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/adopting-the-american-way-ireland-and-the-marshall-plan-1947-57/

Please - stop contaminating myth with fact!

Schadenfreudia

Jawgap wrote: »

NATO reckon 2005 saw the onset of hybrid war

They saw the onset of hybrid war by non-Western actors; NATO themselves pioneered the concept in Yugoslavia and other places.

Earlier examples might be the coups organised across the globe or the support given to the Kmer Rouge.

Actually there are too many examples of "proto-hybrid war" since the end of WW2 to mention; mostly orchestrated by the US.

I guess 2005 was when the US post Cold War hegemony started to fray after the geopolitical catastrophe of Iraq 2.

Dan_Solo

Since we all know the Allies won without Ireland's help, surely the question is if Ireland had sided with Germany would it have altered the course of the war? It could have made invading Britain easier. Then they'd be left with one front really. With the UK out, Germany v USA probably doesn't even really get started and they come to some sort of agreement.
Of course all bets are off once you invade Russia. If Ireland had joined Germany we'd probably be speaking Russian then...

KingBrian2

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Since we all know the Allies won without Ireland's help, surely the question is if Ireland had sided with Germany would it have altered the course of the war? It could have made invading Britain easier. Then they'd be left with one front really. With the UK out, Germany v USA probably doesn't even really get started and they come to some sort of agreement.
Of course all bets are off once you invade Russia. If Ireland had joined Germany we'd probably be speaking Russian then...

Nazi Germany was not a good nation to ally with. They had insane leaders.

Kermit.de.frog

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Since we all know the Allies won without Ireland's help, surely the question is if Ireland had sided with Germany would it have altered the course of the war? It could have made invading Britain easier. Then they'd be left with one front really. With the UK out, Germany v USA probably doesn't even really get started and they come to some sort of agreement.
Of course all bets are off once you invade Russia. If Ireland had joined Germany we'd probably be speaking Russian then...

In a letter to Roosevelt in 1942 Churchill said De Velera did not want to join the war because he believed Germany would win the war. At that stage it would have have seemed likely, in the absence of US involvement, that Germany would win.

Jawgap

CINCLANTFLT wrote: »

But Ireland was part of the Marshall Plan?
http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/adopting-the-american-way-ireland-and-the-marshall-plan-1947-57/

Yes, we benefitted nominally - compare the the contributions received in quality and quantity with those received by other countries

Jawgap

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

They saw the onset of hybrid war by non-Western actors; NATO themselves pioneered the concept in Yugoslavia and other places.

Earlier examples might be the coups organised across the globe or the support given to the Kmer Rouge.

Actually there are too many examples of "proto-hybrid war" since the end of WW2 to mention; mostly orchestrated by the US.

I guess 2005 was when the US post Cold War hegemony started to fray after the geopolitical catastrophe of Iraq 2.

It wasn't.

You might be better reading some of NATO's literature before commenting further.

Yugoslavia was, to a degree, peace enforcement - and a rare example of air power compelling a decision.

sparky42

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Since we all know the Allies won without Ireland's help, surely the question is if Ireland had sided with Germany would it have altered the course of the war? It could have made invading Britain easier. Then they'd be left with one front really. With the UK out, Germany v USA probably doesn't even really get started and they come to some sort of agreement.
Of course all bets are off once you invade Russia. If Ireland had joined Germany we'd probably be speaking Russian then...

Ireland joining the Germans would have made zero difference, Germany utterly lacked the capability to invade the UK. Had they attempted to the UK forces would have had a turkey shoot against the best of the German army.

Us being stupid enough to join Germany would have just demonstrated how stupid the political leadership was.

sparky42

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

In a letter to Roosevelt in 1942 Churchill said De Velera did not want to join the war because he believed Germany would win the war. At that stage it would have have seemed likely, in the absence of US involvement, that Germany would win.

I'd say that was Dev blowing smoke to find a reason to say no, by 42 Germany was already bogged down in Russia and the Middle EAst was still relatively stable.

Schadenfreudia

Jawgap wrote: »

You might be better reading some of NATO's literature before commenting further.

I don't need to do anything before commenting further :rolleyes:

"Literature" is a good euphemism for propaganda. I read across a huge range of sources.

Maybe you need to read more Chomsky or Pilger before commenting further?

Schadenfreudia

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

In a letter to Roosevelt in 1942 Churchill said De Velera did not want to join the war because he believed Germany would win the war. At that stage it would have have seemed likely, in the absence of US involvement, that Germany would win.

Obviously Dev wasn't aware that the US was actually at war with Germany for years at the time!

Maybe he should have consulted a crystal ball and channelled some of the experts posting here who could have given him a heads up?

KingBrian2

Would Turkey have turned the tables around if they had supported the allies in WW2? Ireland was not the only neutral country in that war.

Schadenfreudia

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Ireland was not the only neutral country in that war.

But it is probably the only country where a clique of - eh...talking heads - thinks we should have!

Jawgap

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

I don't need to do anything before commenting further :rolleyes:

"Literature" is a good euphemism for propaganda. I read across a huge range of sources.

Maybe you need to read more Chomsky or Pilger before commenting further?

No, literature is just an expression of the organisation's thinking.

Pilger and Chomsky I've both read, and previously had "Failed States" on the reading list for a course I taught.

Jawgap

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Obviously Dev wasn't aware that the US was actually at war with Germany for years at the time!

Maybe he should have consulted a crystal ball and channelled some of the experts posting here who could have given him a heads up?

It really only became apparent in early spring 1943 that Germany could be defeated, not just denied victory.

CINCLANTFLT

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Please - stop contaminating myth with fact!

Ah...I see

indioblack

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

They are not only relevant, they are an unavoidable problem for those who's present the Allies war as some sort of moral cause.

Hitler's war. Virtually the whole of Europe under German control. Russia taking one hell of a battering. People the Nazis didn't care for eliminated.
Whatever else you might feel about European imperialism - you would be unable to choose between the protagonists?
That the victors write their version of this war is true. That they were not perfect or 100% per cent in the moral right either before or after this war is also true.
But that the Third Reich had to be put down was the right and only outcome that should happen.

Victor

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Obviously Dev wasn't aware that the US was actually at war with Germany for years at the time!

Weren't you arguing earlier that they only declared war less than a month before the start of 1942?

Schadenfreudia

Victor wrote: »

Weren't you arguing earlier that they only declared war less than a month before the start of 1942?

That is still my contention. I was using the citation that Dev seemed unaware of the US involvement, contra opinion here, to illustrate a point.

Irony appears to be lost on people here :cool:

sparky42

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

That is still my contention. I was using the citation that Dev seemed unaware of the US involvement, contra opinion here, to illustrate a point.

Irony appears to be lost on people here :cool:

To my mind, either Dev had little idea of the wide scale naval operations the US had embarked on (with their insuring naval clashes), which given the disgraceful position he and his government gave to the navy is possible.

Or he knew exactly what the positions/forces were and it suited the cute whore to play games.

Given Dev either is possible and equally gutless.

Peregrinus

sparky42 wrote: »

To my mind, either Dev had little idea of the wide scale naval operations the US had embarked on (with their insuring naval clashes), which given the disgraceful position he and his government gave to the navy is possible.

Or he knew exactly what the positions/forces were and it suited the cute whore to play games.

Given Dev either is possible and equally gutless.

I think we are all overlooking the fact that the only claim made is is that Churchill told Roosevelt on some unspecified date in 1942 that Dev expected the Germans to win.

I myself wouldn't take this seriously as evidence that Dev did in fact expect the Germans to win. Churchill might have been mistaken, or he might have had his own reasons for telling Roosevelt this.

Even if Churchill did genuinely hold the view that Dev believed this, we don't know how objectively well-founded that view was. Plus, we don't know when he formed it. If the leetter was written in early 1942 it might well reflect an opinion that Churchill had held since before December 1941.

None of this provides any sound basis for making judgments about Dev's grasp of strategic issues, in particular the impact of US entry into the war.

RDM_83 again

To those arguing for the economic benefits associated with the ROI having naval operations occuring at its ports look at Derry/L'Derry, it was the major hub of anti-submarine it didn't exactly continue as a major part after.

RDM_83 again

RDM_83 again wrote: »

To those arguing for the economic benefits associated with the ROI having naval operations occuring at its ports look at Derry/L'Derry, it was the major hub of anti-submarine it didn't exactly continue as a major part after.

edit: should the fact that many Irish men were able to work in Britain on fairly high pay instead of being conscripted be considered as an associated benefit to neutrality

Dan_Solo

indioblack wrote: »

Hitler's war. Virtually the whole of Europe under German control. Russia taking one hell of a battering. People the Nazis didn't care for eliminated.
Whatever else you might feel about European imperialism - you would be unable to choose between the protagonists?
That the victors write their version of this war is true. That they were not perfect or 100% per cent in the moral right either before or after this war is also true.
But that the Third Reich had to be put down was the right and only outcome that should happen.

I think you're having a different argument here to the rest of us...

Jawgap

RDM_83 again wrote: »

To those arguing for the economic benefits associated with the ROI having naval operations occuring at its ports look at Derry/L'Derry, it was the major hub of anti-submarine it didn't exactly continue as a major part after.

One assumes that's because there was no need for anti-submarine capacity in that part of the world